The University of Exeter has been fined £15,000 after the Upper Tribunal concluded that a 14-month failure to comply with a disclosure order in a freedom of information case amounted to contempt of court, believed to be the first time a public authority has been fined for contempt of court in a Freedom of Information (FOI) case.
In Cleasby v University of Exeter & Anor [2026] UKUT 187 (AAC) (08 May 2026), the Honourable Lady Poole and Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley, said Exeter’s approach to the order was characterised by "high level incompetence, inexcusable mistakes, and a failure to approach the order of the FTT with the seriousness and respect that it merited".
Ceclia Ivimy KC of 11KBW acted for the University of Exeter, while Oliver Jackson of 11KBW acted for the Information Commissioner. A statement issued by 11KBW said the case represented the “first time the Upper Tribunal has issued a fine to a public authority for contempt of court in a Freedom of Information case”.
The dispute centred around a journalist’s request for information on community liaison carried out by the university with the Exeter Community Panel and Resident Liaison Group.
Peter Cleasby, who was working on a story for a local online publication, had asked for the names of the panel members and which organisation or interests each member represented. He also requested information on the agenda and minutes of all meetings held to date.
In its response, the university produced some of the requested information, but withheld details on membership.
This led the man to complain to the ICO over the omissions. However, the watchdog found the university was entitled to use the exemptions it relied upon to deny his request.
As a result, he brought proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), which ordered Exeter to disclose the information within 42 days.
The university ultimately failed to comply with the order, leading Cleasby to pursue contempt proceedings.
Despite strike-out applications from the university, the FTT certified the case to the UT, finding that the university had failed to produce the withheld information.
It also found that, instead of engaging properly with Cleasby's arguments, the university had elected not to provide a formal response to the certification application, or produce evidence, despite directions of the FTT giving it opportunities to do so. Instead the university had made two "unfounded" strike out applications, it said.
Its behaviour during the contempt proceedings pointed towards a "bigger picture of non-compliance", the FTT added.
On 8 May 2025, the university wrote to Cleasby, produced the withheld information, and apologised.
But Cleasby refused to withdraw his contempt application, citing concerns about the culture of the university towards information requests.
In its ensuing decision, the UTT said it was accepted that that the university's behaviour was not motivated by an animus against the FTT, or specifically designed to flout the FTT's order.
However, it said the university's behaviour was characterised by "high level incompetence, inexcusable mistakes, and a failure to approach the order of the FTT with the seriousness and respect that it merited".
The decision added: "The University's errors could have been avoided first by properly reading the FTT's decision, and second by seeking proper and competent advice on its terms.
"The period during which the University was in contempt by failing to obey the FTT's order and disclose the withheld information was considerable, approximately 14 months.
"During that time, the University made two separate strike out applications, which were clearly misguided. The UT considers that it is a case in which imposition of a sanction for contempt of court is merited."
In determining a sanction, the tribunal weighed up factors that increased the seriousness of the sanction. These included: The duration of contempt constituted; The considerable level of resources available to the university; and the seriousness of the contempt and acts and omissions involved.
It meanwhile listed the following as mitigating factors: Later compliance; admission of contempt; apology; explanation for the default; and steps to avoid repetition.
The tribunal noted cases in which courts have been reluctant to impose fines or other sanctions beyond a finding of contempt on public authorities.
It said such findings were "understandable" in cases where, for example, a housing authority has failed to comply with an order in relation to provision of housing, and fining it would deplete public funds which might otherwise be used to provide that housing.
However, it also pointed to cases where sanctions beyond a finding of contempt have been imposed on public authorities (Buzzard-Quashie v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police [2025] EWCA Civ 1502).
It added: "The information regime under the 2000 Act inevitably involves public authorities. Refusing as a matter of course to apply a financial sanction in contempt cases in the context of the 2000 Act would effectively neuter the tribunals' enforcement powers for contempt, in a way not mandated by the 2000 or 2007 Acts.
"Accordingly, while the fact that a body in contempt of court is a public authority may be a relevant factor and indicate caution before imposing financial sanctions, it is not an absolute bar.
"Each case will turn on its own facts. In this case, the seriousness of the contempt and its lengthy duration, in the context of the University's level of resources and even given mitigatory factors, indicate that a sanction in addition to publication is necessary to vindicate the interests of justice."
It ultimately imposed a £15,000, but stated that this figure "would have been considerably higher had the University not admitted the contempt".
The University of Exeter has been approached for comment.
